[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 20 joules at 100 bps vs 4 joules at 500 bps



Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 3 Aug 2005, at 8:20, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hello Malcolm.
>
>  >  >Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  >
>  >  > Isec (pk) = 61A, with full primary voltage at 38kHz
>  >  > Total tower height - 38' 8"
>  >
>  >  > 61 a means that bang  energy = 241.86 joules - real "big bang",
>  i love >  > this guy %-) total capacitance of discharger and the coil
>  would be 135 >  > pf,  then secondary voltage is 1.9 MV. >  > >  >
>  Tl> Point is, how much shorter can you make it before it does become
>  a >  > Tl> problem at 1.9MV (I assume that figure is calculated as
>  though the >  > Tl> coil had no losses)? > >  > if this current peak
>  is just before the discharge (zero voltage), then >  > it`s separated
>  from discharge moment (max voltage) only by a quarter >  > of period
>  of Fres - what losses are you talking about?
>
>  > Principally sparkgap losses.
>
> we speak about Isec peak, i.e. energy is already transferred into
> secondary - gap losses are already in the past. the coil is very tall,
> so coupling probably is very low (b.t.w. - don`t you know how much?),
> then losses resistance of gap transformed into secondary would be very
> high.

My mistake. I think k is about 0.15 but don't quote me.

>  > Of course secondary Q is not infinite either. Then there is the
>  ground.
>
> are you tryin to say, that in quarter of period system lose 90 joules
> - 37% of its start (at the beginning of the period) energy? and what
> about full period then? %)

I don't know how you calculated how much energy was going to make it
to the secondary on first transfer without knowing what the losses
are.

Malcolm

> -----
> I am skeptical about space aliens too, but space aliens have a greater
> probability of existence in my opinion than extra garage space... (c)
> Richard Quick 6-07-95 03:59
>
>
>